Jeff;
there will be multiple crews of similar composition & experience formed and tested in simulators under varied hypothesis.
I am sure you will know this intuitively but it requires stating. A simulator is precisely that - an electronic, software-driven "look-alike" with wonderful fidelity to the aircraft
under normal and known abnormal conditions. It is programmed not through "sampled" data but using software that mimics, very well, the aircraft's cockpit arrangements. The aerodynamics of the aircraft are extremely well done and within expected flight regimes, I should think reliably mimic the aircraft.
However, the simulator's very best qualities are also its greatest fault. Its very veracity can mislead an experimenter into believing that "this is how the airplane would respond". These are very complex machines and we simply cannot know, in my view, that what the simulator does in all circumstances, is what the aircraft would do.
So, programming failed pitots and permitting the speed to bleed sufficiently to enter an initial stall, as one experiment, with very heavy gusts from either side or from below, possibly with hail, (programmed noise), may or may not yield interesting answers in terms of aircraft stall behaviour under these specific circumstances.
I am emphasizing limitations here on purpose - these are very good machines, and I suspect Airbus's has special algorithms for taking the airframe beyond expected airline operational limits. Still....it is not an airplane and the storms and the radar are not real. Just a caution, that's all.